Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1887-10-14
Tie Inv ReIn,inr to Fence.

By common law Of England according
to Henry Austin's digest, adopted in some
of the American States no person was
bound to fence his land from his neghbor's
adjoining field unless by force of prescrip-
ton, that is, at least twenty years usage,
but every person was bound to keep his own
cattle within his own land, at his peril
Therefore, il the owner neglected to CON
fine them upon his own land he was an
swerable for any trespass they might com
init, even though they entered from the
land Of third person, or from the highway,
and for any injury they might sustain by
going upon the land of another, he was pre-
cluded from recovering damages. The com
mon law rules differ in various states, in
some of which the owner of animals is un
der no obligation to fence them in The uc-
cupant of land must keep them out at his
peril, but is justified in keeping them away
from his unfenced land in any reasonable
manner. II they should break through
sufficient fence, their owners are liable for
damages consequent upon the trespass as at
common law. The legal obligations of own
ers adjoining lands to make and maintain
partition fence rests entirely upon the pro-
visions made by statute in the different
states, which, of course, vary considerably.
Fences or boundaries are TO be built on the
line. The expense, when made according
to law, is to be born equally between the
two parties. They are, in their nature,
real estate, belonging to the owner of the
land, and pass, by his deed of land, without
being expressed or designated as part of the
thing granted. In Massachusetts it is pro-
vided that fences four feet high and IN good
repair, consisting Of rails, timber boards
or stone, also that brooks, rivers, ponds
creeks, bitches and hedges, or other things
which the fence viewers shall consider
equivalent thereto, shall he deemed legal
and sufficient. An agreement to maintain
a boundary and division fence is irrevoca-
BILE except by mutual consent or in some
way provided by statute If a person neg
lects to maintain the fence and his own ami
mails are injured, or if he sustains loss by
the entry upon the land of animals belong.
ing to others, he has no remedy. If ami
mails stray upon the land through n defect
i've fence, or by reason of the want of a
fence, which he himself is obliged to build,
he Is then liable as n trespasser The owner
is never obliged to fence his land against
any cattle but those which are rightfullv
in the adjoining land The obligation t.
repair fence may arise by force of al
agreement, by prescription or 10y statute
l'ci sui W III Of lttl lltblt llI All tilt
consequences arising from his neglect if he
fails to make the requisite repairs. Thus
where the plaintiffs horse escapes into the
defendants field, through defect in fences
which the defendant was bound TO repair
and was killed by falling into ditch, it was
held that the defendant was liable for the
damages. But the occupant of the land
and not the owner, is the one who is bound
to keep the fence in repair, and he is en-
titled to such use and occupation of the ad
joining land as is necessary to carry out
that duty. No one is bound to keep up
fences between the adjoining lands OF
which he is owner, and even where ad
joining lands which have once belonged
to different persons, one of whom was
bound TO repair the fences between the
two afterward became the property of the
same person, the pIeGIisting obligation to
repair the fences is destroyed BY unity of
ownership. And where person who has
become the owner of the entirety after
ward parts with one Of the pieces Of land,
the obligation to repair the fences will not
revive unless express words be introduced
into the deed to that effect Cultirdtor.